get_organizationRetrieve your organization's current plan, usage limits, and connected-account summary to check available capacity and account status.
Plan, limits, and connected-account summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only a hint of what is returned (plan, limits, connected-account summary), with no mention of permissions, freshness, or whether it reflects a cached snapshot.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is only five words, so there is no waste, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose and effect. Brevity here comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficient editing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it names three content groups (plan, limits, connected accounts) — a partial compensation. However, it omits what 'limits' means (rate limits vs plan quotas) and the shape/scope of 'connected-account summary', leaving the response partially opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. An empty input schema is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The fragment 'Plan, limits, and connected-account summary' signals the resource content (organization-level plan/billing/connections) but never uses a verb or names the resource, so the agent must infer that it retrieves the current organization. It does implicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_usage or get_account by scoping to plan/limits/connected accounts, but the distinction is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to call this versus list_accounts, get_account, get_usage, or check_setup, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent is given content hints but no routing guidance among many overlapping org/account siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.